I saw lots of friends choose to become pregnant with boyfriends they knew wouldn’t last – purely because the desire to have a child took over. I also saw ‘traditional’ families breaking up all around me, so I thought, ‘Maybe I should just make this happen on my own.’” Fjord asked herself, “all the tough questions”: “Does the world need more people? Couldn’t I adopt?’ And I looked into it, but adoption is practically impossible in Denmark as a single woman, and it’s very expensive. Plus I had this primal urge to have my own child. I thought about having a baby with a friend, but realised this could get complicated. I considered a one-night stand – not a big deal in Denmark – but felt this would be somehow dishonest, stealing sperm from someone. This left donor conception.

Despite accurately defining the issue in the title, the Guardian investigates further and finds that it is actually men who are to blame for not getting with the program once a thirty something career woman decides to become pregnant:

“The majority say that becoming a solomor was Plan B,” says Lone Schmidt, associate professor at the University of Copenhagen Department of Public Health: “Two thirds had been in a relationship and wanted to become pregnant but their partners weren’t ready.” The average age of couples seeking help for fertility problems in Denmark is 33, and the average age of single women is 36. “In other words,” says Schmidt, “women are waiting it out, and when it becomes clear that there isn’t going to be a man in the picture, they’re taking action themselves.”

Like the Guardian, Instapundit commenter Amphipolis fears the idea of women facing stigma for choosing single motherhood. Surely we can find a solution which focuses the responsibility on men and not women:

For every single mother there is a donor man who is willing to engender a fatherless child.

Men are also responsible for this, and their anonymity is just a bit of paperwork.

This is the standard refrain from Gilligans everywhere, who live in terror of the thought of unhappy sluts. But our little buddy’s understanding of biology is flawed. It only takes a handful of willing donors to create all of the bastards the single mothers wish to create.

Note also that Amphipolis’ fundamental objection is to the new family model being circumvented. This new family model of course is not marriage, but child support. He doesn’t propose shutting down sperm banks altogether, or only allowing married couples to use their services. His focus is on identifying the donors so they can be forced to pay child support.

The sperm donors are exactly who I am talking about. They made this happen. They are partly responsible.

This is why I have always been leery of the sperm banks concept. It’s anonymous donors forever until it isn’t. To be fair, the clinics know their very lucrative business is over if they are forced to keep, then divulge, donor records. So far they have kept the dam intact. But there was an Oprah story a few years back: several test-tube moms were able to trace autism in their turkey baster sons to a single donor who – despite being all Aryan and genius and desirable – had a genetic marker for autism. When the story was written the clinic was fighting very hard not to officially out the donor – yet somehow his identity was discovered (though not published). Not sure how that turned out.

The comments section makes me weep for western civilization.
Of course, “Dey don’t need no man”, but why aren’t men manning up and marrying those sluts?
It isn’t surprising that liberals don’t understand economic incentives, or to put it bluntly, why buy the cow when the milk is free?
Men aren’t becoming fathers or marrying these women because they don’t feel wanted or needed. How many of these women spurned men for their 20’s to ride the carousel, then wanted to “settle” in their 30’s? Men are wising up to this and don’t want to be someone’s fall back.
I met my wife when she was 18 and i was 24. She could have ridden the carousel, but decided she found the man she wanted to marry and we did. How many of these women had a man when she was young and beautiful but didn’t want to be “tied down”?

There are still men willing to randomly impregnate Western sluts? Only a moron would do that. I don’t think these women are getting quality male genetics for their fertility dollar even if the sperm really did go to Harvard. Especially if the sperm went to Harvard.

Ah, science. You make breeding a fun-less job for professionals only. Please stop cuckolding me. It’s my tax money that pays for those single mothers, you know, and my tax burden is a major reason I can’t have any kids of my own. Go back to reverse-engineering dinosaurs. If my tax money needs to be misspent then I’d rather pay you to do something creative, like making me a big pet lizard that’ll eat my garbage, carry me to work and give me back massages.

Vasilgel can’t come fast enough. Don’t even think about becoming a sperm donor. The writting is on the wall. You may think you are helping out couples were the male has an issue, but it is more likely you will be cucked by some “Don’t need no man” modern woman. She will however need your child support check. It is only a mater of time.

“Research shows that the children of single parents are just as well balanced” says the Guardian (without providing a link to this “research”).

But does it? All I’ve seen is that children (but esp. boys) of single mommies are at increased risk for all too many social maladies. In addition to increased risk of poverty, unless the rest of us provide the massive subsidies necessary to to make this an economically viable choice.

“Only […] a handful of donors” implies the non-zero probability of half-sibling pairings in the next generation. Opus, isn’t that an opportunity for litigation against the sperm banks, once they are spotted?

It’s not just liberals that fail to understand economic incentives. The churchian right also completely fails to grasp this. I’m disgusted by my church as they ramble on about supporting marriage with their right hand while they encourage divorce with their left.

All you have to do is tell these worthless manginas that if we don’t encourage mass divorce and create incentives for women to divorce some woman somewhere might possibly stay in an abusive relationship. And bam all their talk about the sanctity of marriage evaporates as they rush to encourage women to divorce all those bad men.

And in church my fellow worthless men will create excuses for women out of thin air. Oh that woman frivorced her husband? What did that bad man do? I bet he was abusive. Secretly.

The churchs have become fertility cults that worship at the alter of the vagina. If a woman’s vagina tingles tell her to have sex with a different man then her husband everyone at church simply knows that it’s his fault and he deserves it. Of course he does. How could that woman’s vagina be wrong? I mean God gave her that vagina and surely if all women simply follow their vagina tingles, and those bad men stop screwing feminism up, then we would live in heaven on earth.

The churchs are fertility cults now. They worship the holy vagina that can do no wrong.

Most of my time interacting with the men from my church is simply me trying to show them that we’ve already lost the feminist rebellion. We are not worshipping our Lord God but instead going to absurd lengths to rationalize all female behavior as just and proper. How could it not be? She’s just following her “heart”. Don’t you want women to follow their “hearts”?

modernmathetes
That woman is crazy normal. And is proud of having took a shot at the president. The reporter is trying to make her out as a better person and she is I’m the same woman that shot at the guy 40 years ago. How she got on parole is amazing only if she was a man.

You thought the 80/20 rule was bad for betas in the smp. Just wait until 1/2 of all single moms choose sperm banks of which several chads have produced 1000’s of half-siblings. In thirty years the headline will be “How to find the last few good men – And several tricks to make sure he’s not your brother!”

“I’d still love to meet someone and give my little girl a dad. For me, a father is so much more than a blob of sperm. A father is someone who makes the lunch boxes, says, ‘Good morning,’ and kisses good night. He’s the one who is always there for the child during its upbringing. I just haven’t met him yet.”

Although she has spent her younger and more fertile years on her career and riding what not, she saved the true gift of step-parenthood for her true soulmate, wherever he may be. Even though Ms. Fjord previously stated “I had this primal urge to have my own child,” she expects that every decent man out there should be willing to step up and unhesitatingly provide years or decades of emotional and economic support to children who are not his biological offspring.

The article does one thing, it reinforces Dalrock’s assertion that marriage is still a prize, only 1% of single mothers are seeking fertility treatment (only about 400 in total and the majority with high incomes), the rest are couples.

There is a sever intrasexual stigma attached to being a turkey baster mother, it signals to the world that one is basically a failure. With all the free cock going around what kind of loser must a woman be if she can’t even get pregnant by a man.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the number one reason sperm donorship promotors want anonimty is because most donors are drop kicks and they don’t want their clients to know., like the American beach bum that sired hundreds of children.

Actually yes. The world will always need more people even if there is overpopulation right now, and there isn’t. Asking that question is as silly as asking: “I overslept during the last weekend. Do I need to sleep again for the week?” Or, “I ate too much at dinner last night. Do I need to eat again?”

If humans stopped procreating for a mere 50 years, we’d probably go extinct.

There are some men out there willing to wife up single mothers, whether through divorce, or the cock carousel. But I cannot imagine any beta, who is so beta, that he would wife up a woman who gave her womb to a literal jerk-off.

@megalodon,
“For me, a father is so much more than a blob of sperm. A father is someone who makes the lunch boxes, says, ‘Good morning,’ and kisses good night. He’s the one who is always there for the child during its upbringing.”

A buddy of my dad’s was born on a farm, but his mother died young. Buddy’s dad remarried, because he needed a wife, to raise a small child on a farm. As soon as they were married, she told buddy’s dad to get rid of the kid. A childless older couple down the road took him. The parents who raised my dad’s buddy were more than a blob of sperm, they were his parents. Through the remainder of his life he had nothing to do with his bio-dad or his half siblings. The couple who raised him had established a life together, and obtained the child together.

Taking on the single mother of a jerk off’s child is not something that a man who wants to be a dad would do.

I know several men who are pre-cucks raising other men’s children. They hate it. I’ve been told in private by these men that they can not, CAN NOT, truly love these bastards. And they feel upset that these bastard children are going to take attention away from their own children.

Anyone who claims that children raised illegitimate in single parent homes are anywhere near as healthy and well adjusted as those that grow up in a nuclear family with twice as much parental investment are simply retarded. The banksters will spread their lies through the media they own and teach the sheep that the real problem is that these poor heroic single mothers just don’t have enough money. We need to give them even more money to say they can better embrace total feral hedonism.

Men civilize women. When the government marries all the women they run feral as there is no man to properly ground them into future time orientation. So they ever seek immediate gratification.

The facts are clear. I can’t believe that this isn’t being done deliberately. They are that clear and obvious. I feel like our own government is at war with our women. Deliberately lying to them and encouraging them to make horrible short-sighted decisions.

I can’t believe that this isn’t being done deliberately. They are that clear and obvious. I feel like our own government is at war with our women. Deliberately lying to them and encouraging them to make horrible short-sighted decisions.

Almost every welfare and social program that has been introduced revolves around a substitution for something that the stable traditional family would otherwise have provided.

Destroy the family, Government expands. I am convinced the end result of Western “democracy” will be nothing short of communism, with a tyrannical ruling class of absolute power.

Depressing reading, Dalrock. Scandinavia once had the worlds most desirable women, on terms of beauty, virtue and wholesomeness. Progressive thought came in, and there began the downfall of the Scandinavian woman. It started innocently enough, with nature nudity pictures, escalated through porn, and now, behold the enlightened feminist career woman, one with no moral centre. Such a woman can easily make a fatherless child as she can a child fatherless. To her it doesn’t matter.
Ironically the rise of Islam in Northern Europe (repelled successfully by that weakling straw man, Christianity, for a millennium!) might just save the Scandinavians: They might abandon feminism and bond to their men to rebuild themselves. This of course is reliant on men having sufficient incentive. More separation, more divorce, more fatherlessness, more instability, more feminism and more lesbianism will just tell men to simply not bother.

The history of what be best described as “Social Democracy”, mostly the welfare state, is itself pretty fascinating. The guy that really kicked it off was Otto von Bismark, and for purely logical reasons. The Communists operate by preaching pure greed, so he wanted a way to cut off the pull at its knees.

The USA side of things is the more interesting bit. If you ever wonder why Progressives act like Puritans without the humor or consistency, it’s because they actually *are* the ideological descendants of the Puritans. Just without God. The entire edifice of the Welfare State is the interaction of the American Church with Marxist thinking. It warped up & down, spawned the activist political movements, lost God and set the State as god.

It’s also why so many of the mistakes we see (whether in domestic or foreign politics) seem oddly similar to the times when the major Churches were run by fools. Too much fervor, not enough Wisdom. Leads to a lot of dead people.

Perhaps we ought to ask any reader here who has donated his sperm to a bank as to why he did it and what he gets out of it. Does such a person see himself as a modern Genghis Khan but without the sex? What is worse: ejaculating into a Sex-bot or into a test-tube? What about the ethical rights of test-tubes?

I was briefly romantically linked (she wanted to cuck me) with a woman (she was twenty-nine) who one day as we were going along; with me in the driving seat, announced that she had always wanted a child and there was a guy she knew who had said that if she ever wanted a child he would be happy to provide the sperm. Now that guy has Game (I thought) as it took me a few weeks to successfully make my home run (if you see what I mean) – but if the child so conceived was as stupid as both its parents then I could only feel sorry for the child. When you say that sort of thing to your boyfriend then the idea that you are seriously looking for a husband vanishes or you have raised the bar to some unrealistic level.

Denmark: I visited those gardens at Tivoli; they are pretty tatty. Did you know that Denmark was once (circa 1912) the world leader for the production of motion pictures and that it was the first and only producer of professionally made Child Porn (circa 1977)? That Tove (who was not a child) was pretty cute, though I hear that she has not worn well. I think I will listen to some Nielsen – probably No. 5 (the inextinguishable) – I may be a little while.

I can’t believe that this isn’t being done deliberately. They are that clear and obvious. I feel like our own government is at war with our women. Deliberately lying to them and encouraging them to make horrible short-sighted decisions.

Of course the government is lying to them—the same way a PUA lies to a potential conquest, because he has something to take from her (in this cas it’s the votes). He knows her agreeing to sleep with him is a shortsighted decision on her part, he goes on to lie to her anyway, telling her she is is making the best decision, and that he is on her side. This arrangement continues until he is tired of her, or until he finds a better model, replacing her without a second thought.
The government is the most powerful PUA on the planet. All PUAs are Alphas, but not all Alphas are PUAs.

Just to nitpick, “whore” or “harlot” would be more accurate terms. “Slut” means a slovenly or unkempt woman. And since the sluts have used the “own the insult” tactic to co-opt the (misused) word “slut”, “whore” or “harlot” would be more rhetorically effective. As and added bonus, whore and harlot are KJV Bible terms.

Few things make my blood boil the way sperm banks do. I would like to see every one of these vile institutions destroyed.
Of course, I do not want to lay the blame for them at the feet of me, the way the article in the Guardian does. But then I don’t want to absolve anyone connected with them–the people who run them, the women who use them, or the men who donate or sell their semen–off the hook. They are all working in concert to destroy the family (and no, matripods are NOT families), and I despise all of them. Not that I think the men any more culpable than the women, but as long as we’re talking about the men, here is their guilt: by donating or selling their semen to such places, they are contributing to the demise of fatherhood and to any meaning that can be attached to paternity. They are contributing to the increasing sense of uselessness of their sex in family life. They are traitors to all men who place any value on fatherhood, and I would like personally to punch each one in the face. As for the women who patronize sperm banks, I see them as lower than whale shit, and I will do everything I can to restore any stigma attached to what they do.

One thing to realize is that Denmark is a Socialist Paradise for Mothers.
Denmark like a lot of EU countries struggling with depopulation are throwing benefits at Mothers.
They get generous time off to have the child and free day care plus a subsidy per child. As one girl from Denmark put it you can have a nice life as a mother there.
I know personally two Dane girls who came to America to get knocked up then flew back to raise the baby. Of course making sure that the baby’s daddy was on the birth certificate and making sure he assumes Parental rights via the State Dept… thus making the baby eligible for US Citizenship and… thus Mommy too once the forms are completed.
I am convinced that both these girls wanted US Citizenship and once the American Boys did not put the ring on those sweet Danish girls went for Plan B.

Outside of the normal Single Mother’s raising boys to be feminized fears. I just don’t see an issue with Euro chics going the Sperm Bank route. I mean if Euroland wants to organize their society so that Men are not incentivized to play house. And they use tax redistribution to raise kids with single mothers… (shrug).
I think the real problem is that Euroland does not know where this gigantic social experiment ends. They know they have a depopulation problem. They know they have to do something. Up until recently they believed that a wave of immigrants friendly to their culture would magically appear.

Instead they have a wave of barbarians at the gates who will be more than willing to have kids with their daughters and use the feminized boys as harem Eunuchs.

But ya know there was once a Godly institution that actually taught young women to be fruitful and multiply… Euroland might want to look at the dynamic of the decline in that Institution and Euroland’s population issues. Just sayin’

When a man wants to marry a foreign national and bring her to the US, he must sign an “Affidavit of Support” which basically states that he will be financially responsible for her and that, barring some extreme circumstance, she will not become a public charge. I’m sure that document becomes exhibit A in the case where the government seeks to recover any money they spend on the woman in the future. I wonder if women have to guarantee support for their turkey baster babies so they will not become public charges? Don’t bother to answer me; it was a rhetorical question….

@Bruce,Just to nitpick, “whore” or “harlot” would be more accurate terms. “Slut” means a slovenly or unkempt woman. And since the sluts have used the “own the insult” tactic to co-opt the (misused) word “slut”, “whore” or “harlot” would be more rhetorically effective. As and added bonus, whore and harlot are KJV Bible terms.

I have often found that the old terms are very powerful, and they convey the intended effects. I don’t write “gays”, but “homosexuals”. It’s not “cheating” but “adultery”. And “fornicate” still caries more sting than “sleep with a guy”. And calling a woman a “harlot” or “whore” is definitely more painful than using any of the more modern euphemisms.

The vanity of modern woman in her efforts to avoid the inevitable wall is getting really disturbing.

It is disappointing to see the resurgence of the “unnecessary father” meme so popular in the 80’s and 90’s. Except then its was culturally promoted and encouraged. Now of course it is the guy’s fault. And despite the wealth of statistics showing that children in two parent families do much better than single-parented children. With the added false meme that children are strong and resilient, they can handle everything, it’s just us parents who are so fragile and unhaaappy that the idea of a duty to do right by our children is just too much for us to bear.

It should be noted that the peer reviewed studies on child outcomes based on one parent versus two parent family, are controlled for economic factors. They uniformly show that regardless of the economic status read single mother homes are the absolute worst for raising children. This control for economic factors cuts off at the knees the left wing liberal argument that it is just that not enough money is being funneled through the government to the women. women are fine raising babies and very small children; they are horrible at raising children to be responsible healthy adults.

The men who sell their sperm to these institutions should be held liable for child support. Doing that would swiftly end these businesses and cut off a major support system for women who don’t want to do it the right way. It would be easy to use their language as subterfuge. In fact, this situation is tailor-made to force their own rhetoric and beliefs down their throat with a heaping dose of hot sauce.

Also from the Asheville story observe the new goal-post move: a modified definition of what constitutes “sexual violence” (see the OurVoice quote in the cited articles). Not just forcible assault, but the term now includes rude remarks, bad kino, clumsy approaches giving a gal the creeps, and in this instance, revealing a prior encounter “without permission” (though the Duke “10” girl rating her best male conquests gets a pass I guess). By calling all of this “sexual violence” is how you get to the “20% of college women face sexual violence” surveys. Even when the women doing the survey responses don’t consider what happened to them “violence”, the surveyors fix that for them. See the discussion at Rollo’s on this in the Planned Obsolescence comments.

Women are still very vulnerable to being called a slut. Even when they are actively and openly celebrating it. Call them what they are. Sluts. And make it clear that in your heart you put women into two categories. Worthless sluts only good for one thing and girls who you can actually love.

I’ve had several girls get very angry at me for judging them. I just turn it back on them and ask them if they think it’s wrong to be a slut. This gets their panties all bunched up. Eventually a few of them will go, “no there is nothing wrong with a girl being a slut!”

Agree with them again and encourage them to not lie to men. Then let them know that they do not get to control men’s decisions nor do they get to control who men’s hearts can truly love. And then point out that these sluts don’t need to worry. When they turn 28 they can go find a fat loser who doesn’t mind having babies with an old used up slut. Then they can build a relationship with a foundation of sand and lies and wonder why they are so bitterly unhappy at 35.

Course this will draw a target on your back from the SJWs and eventually I get myself banned once these poor used up sluts have reported enough of my posts and written to the admins about how they “feel scared” having me on the forum.

I just register again from a dynamic IP and go right back to my regular posting. Someone has to tell these girls the truth. Even if it makes those poor sluts “feel scared”.

I would like your help with a minor problem. I am incapable of breaking into minds which do not function as mine does, so while I am quite gifted at conversation with men and able to moderate between men and women, I am quite baffled by the seemingly universal trait of sheer silliness with which women tend comport themselves. My problem is not acknowledging and accepting this as empirical fact; my problem is how do I determine if the arbitrary woman does not hold these peculiar mental vagaries when the overwhelming majority of women do.

Specifically, my concerns are, in order: 1. She must be honest with herself about what she wants, 2. She must acknowledge that I have no patience for emotional outbursts and at least try to control herself, 3. She must be intelligent, if not educated, 4. She must be in sufficient command of herself not to fall for the blatantly manipulative aspects of Game, I have no problem with her enjoying the flirtation but a past history of sexual misconduct is a deal breaker, 5. She must overcome her innate solipsism, or make the effort to over come it and acknowledge when it is pointed out that she has failed to do so. The rest of the attributes are superficial and unimportant for this discussion.

If this reeks of NAWALT, I would beg you to consider that no other woman is, frankly, worth my time. I would rather enjoy aging with a dog and some cats than have a banshee in my house.

Any and all suggestions on how to go about being sure of the above points is appreciated.

“I’m hoping that people will not be afraid to say, ‘That doesn’t mean you hate men,’” Clinton added. It doesn’t mean you want to separate out the world, so you’re not a part of ordinary life — that’s not what it means at all!” Clinton said. “It just means that we believe that women have the same rights as men, politically, culturally, socially, economically.”

Liars gotta lie. On top of that, I doubt that either of these women have ever met someone who wasn’t a feminist. Most people, especially women, who say they aren’t feminist actually are. They just don’t understand that feminism is mainstream and has for some time been the standard mentality of Western societies.

You’re using “slut” with an obsolete meaning. It now means a sexually promiscuous woman that does not accept direct compensation for sex. The term “whore” is a promiscuous woman that DOES accept direct compensation for sex.

Whore and harlot being KJV Bible terms may turn people off by their use, just as hearing the word “racist” should clue someone in to the fact that there is no dialectic discourse going on.

“my problem is how do I determine if the arbitrary woman does not hold these peculiar mental vagaries when the overwhelming majority of women do.”

AWALT. An emotion-based worldview is a feature of women not a bug, which is why Man’s Best Friend is not a woman. To find the women who’ve been (self-)taught to be rational, I can only recommend looking for related traits like self-discipline, an expressed desire for male leadership and minimal insurance coverage.

The sort of woman you’re asking for is typically the end product of a long, loyal marriage. Aren’t many of those anymore. Women don’t instinctively know how men work any more than men do women and, unlike us, aren’t inclined to solve the puzzle on their own.

They are not happy because they weren’t forcefully shutdown a century ago. But they had the backing of male govts and corporations who knew that “empowering” idiot women was the key to their total power. Its all over on all these scores. All is lost.

Men give to sperm backs out of the sheer ego of the idea of fathering limitless kids with many women. Any man who says he donated out of compassion is full of shit.

Australia’s got the same thing happening and is actually subsidising single mothers having IVF. This (along with gay couples being given access) was brought in by feminist former PM Julia Gillard who herself is childless.
Way to go in making a group of people dependant on handouts larger!
Now with anonymity removed for sperm donors there’s a critical shortage of sperm and they’re importing it from the USA.
They’re trying to get the conversation opened up to attract more donors, but always ignore legitimate concerns of potential donors and thus don’t get the donations they want.
Big lefty media keeps showing stories of happy donors meeting their well adjusted ‘children’, but never quite discuss any cases of less adjusted ones.

If you want to see what the end game looks like see the African American community. Black women can do what ever they want. No arrest made. Black men arrested shot and or killed for being out in public breathing air. Good black men educated and adapted to survival in that world seen as wimps with no sexual appeal at all. women in search of masculinity seek for the sake of natural gina tingle biggest I don’t care gorilla on the block. 70% of all black children born to these women their sons raised by these women act like these ratchet hoes and are killed and arrested routinely for such behavior. Sometimes leads to death or rights violation od said black men. See Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc.

If you want to see what the end game looks like see the African American community.

The canary in the coal mine, except that when the entire nation reaches this state there is likely to be no more USA. If there is anything left at all it will probably be chaotic, lawless, and fragmented. More likely the country will succumb to an exterior force before then IMO.

If you actually look at the life-outcomes, a black Man living in the Jim Crow-era South really did have better prospects in life than a black Man born within a major city now. That’s pretty horrific. (There was also significantly less likely to kill another black Man)

I’m starting to come to the conclusion that the “peak” of the post-Civil War governance in the USA was 1964. All of the stupidity of the Progressive Era hadn’t added up yet and the coming Great Society (which wasn’t going to be great) hadn’t started. Music was good, jobs were much easier to come by and our Government didn’t hate its own citizens yet.

/i “modernmathetes
That woman is crazy normal. And is proud of having took a shot at the president. The reporter is trying to make her out as a better person and she is I’m the same woman that shot at the guy 40 years ago. How she got on parole is amazing only if she was a man.”

I believe it’s a liberal slap in the face to conservatives. The Left is saying to the Right, “We will take what you hold in esteem and destroy it”. John Hinckley, Jr served 20 years and got out on parole this year for attempting to assassinate another Republican President, Ronald Reagan, a revered conservative icon. Mark Davis Chapman who slew John Lennon, a liberal idol, has been denied parole 8 times after serving 20 years in prison.

It takes conviction in your cause to be able to do this, which is why Liberals win and Conservatives lose. Conservatives will continue to have their constituencies cuckolded politically by the Left because they believe a prosperous and free America is achievable without the God of Israel that made it a reality.

We would need a Classically Liberal Christian leader willing to declare the American Left and it’s cancerous Federal Government as the Evil it is in the way Reagan declared the Soviet Union to be the “Evil Empire” at the Berlin Wall. Reagan’s own advisers tried to have him from water down that speech, and when that failed, they tried to stop him from giving it altogether. The Gipper had other plans and the timid tend not to make history.

I’m not kidding myself about this, however. Short of God’s intervention, enjoy the decline.

And I looked into it, but adoption is practically impossible in Denmark as a single woman, and it’s very expensive.

Money aside, can anyone humor GXcX by answering the following question, as his mind is currently drawing a blank:

His query: If single women are deemed as not being in a position to become mothers through adoption (come into possession of a child), then how are these same single women deemed fit to be mothers through pregnancy (the same woman is still coming into possession of a child)?

I just went back and re-read your original Gilligan post and you missed a huge whopper. You write the following: Gilligans are especially susceptible to what I call the it takes two fallacy. In the proper context it isn’t a fallacy at all. If an individual woman has a child out of wedlock, it is a fact that there is somewhere a man who is also responsible for the problem. So far, no problem. But the Gilligans want to use this to form social policy. They mistakenly apply at the macro level what is only true at the micro level.

Now, I often hear conservative, even of the traditionalist stripe, asserting that rights equals responsibilities. Now, what they are really saying is that responsibility implies authority and vice versa.

The reality is that men, even on the micro level, have no authority over the reproductive process and, therefore, they have no responsibility for the reproductive process. The sperm donor only has the authority to provide a sperm bank with his sperm in exchange for money, and he has no authority over what the sperm bank does with that sperm. That bank may sell his sperm to a single woman, it may sell it to a couple with an infertile male or it may simply throw it away if no buyers appear. What happens after he sells that sperm is not under his authority and, therefore, it is not his responsibility in even the remotest sense.

What conservatives miss, including yourself it seems, is that in a regime that operates under “my body, my choice” all authority over the reproductive cycle is given to Woman and, therefore, all responsibility is entirely removed from Man.

Today, no man, including married men, have any responsibility for any child currently alive. Certainly , the state may force individual men to expend effort providing for children, however, that provision is coerce at gunpoint without any conferred authority, something also known as slavery.

On the topic of adoption, I think it’s best to think about most Upper Class Progressives. They support policies, in politics, that they simply do not act out within their own personal lives. In the adoption situation, it’s pretty clear: the people that placed the child would be held responsible if anything goes badly. They just blind themselves to following the logic through.

@Asher:

You confuse yourself (and your argument) by not understanding the terms. Let me clear up your thinking for you (as you’re not too far off).

Authority is the power to enforce.
Responsibility is paying for the results of actions.

A Man is responsible for all of the “reproductive cycle” that a Woman decides he is responsible for. Men have been striped of their legal Authority, in most cases, but most of the Responsibility has been placed upon them by the force of the gun, at the behest of the Woman involved.

A Copenhagen University public-health professor in the Guardian article says “These women appear to do an amazing job but the situation isn’t sustainable…we need to educate men that if they want children, they need to get on with it while their partner still has time.”

Wouldn’t not using their time be at least partially the fault of the one not using their time? No, it must be a man’s fault. We need to educate them.

The solution is stopping the demand for sperm banks, not those who will supply them.

It is like trying to solve a wild domestic cat problem by fixing the toms. It only takes one tom to gladly service every last female cat. You can only fix the problem by fixing the ones that get pregnant and thus create demand.

It may be helpful to remove the veil of secrecy, but many women will still have children “on their own” as long as it seems like a way to get what they want. Deal with that or the problem will never go away.

@snowdensjacket0x0x0
>I know several men who are pre-cucks raising other men’s children. They hate it. I’ve been told in private by these men that they can not, CAN NOT, truly love these bastards. And they feel upset that these bastard children are going to take attention away from their own children.

I seriously considered accepting such a woman. She refused to consistently or effectively discipline her children, which I guess was fortunate for me, as that is what caused me to end the relationship.

And you only stated half the problem. Yes, I hated the idea that I would have to invest my time, resources and emotional efforts in another man’s children. But, even worse, this sacrifice would come with the additional expense of losing out on having my own children. I do not think a typical man who wants 2 children would agree to have 4 around, to compensate for the 2 the woman previously had. We each have limits; resources, time, patience, etc.

Gunner Q
>I can only recommend looking for related traits like self-discipline, an expressed desire for male leadership and minimal insurance coverage.

I am curious about the “minimal insurance coverage”. Why is this a good thing?
I have extra car insurance (1 million $ instead of minimum 200,000$), as the extra cost versus extra coverage is a good trade-off.
Similarly, I pay for house insurance, etc.
Assuming a reasonable cost-benefit ratio, insurance just seems to me like wise risk-management.

Once they brought in legislation in UK so that sperm donors could be ID’d when the kid reached 18 then donor numbers collapsed (the official line is that the quality of most volunteers is too low. Low IQ I’ll bet!). The UK’s national sperm bank has only 9 registered donors. That’s right, nine. Really.

False. Karl Marx (d. 1883) had no uncle who was “the founder of Philips”. Neither co-founder of the Philips Company (f. 1891) and neither of the co-founders of Philips Gloelampenfabrieken N.V. (f. 1912) were Karl Marx’s uncle. They were, however, distantly related.

Looking glass, Asher
You are saying the same thing and are spot on and why we have MGTOW and PUA.
You have also explained the basis for VR sex and sex bots and why they are such a threat to the status quo. Now see where Gandarusa (a male birth control pill) comes into play and never get air time or publicity at all any where in the main stream.
BradA children are meal tickets and status markers for woman and always have been. Women have no respect for the father of their child because there is no selfish need to. (as explained by looking glass and asher.) Adoption is no good because the adopted child is an obligation not a meal ticket and requirement for others to her. The sperm bank removes even the requirement for her to have a man in her life. To much work especially for the man she wants. I’m sure they have photos and stats for the sperm she is getting and she knows she could never get a guy like that to commit to her or more important she would never give up the delusion of empowerment for such a man when she could secure commitment from such a man.
As soon as the government goes broke or just stops funding the feminine imperative many things change. .

A Copenhagen University public-health professor in the Guardian article says “These women appear to do an amazing job but the situation isn’t sustainable…we need to educate men that if they want children, they need to get on with it while their partner still has time.”

Wouldn’t not using their time be at least partially the fault of the one not using their time? No, it must be a man’s fault. We need to educate them.

Seeing it another way, I notice extreme gynocentricism, where the woman remains at the epicenter of this decaying culture, and the man plays the roles assigned to him, no questions asked. Else, why would he be expected to arrange his life to meet the schedule of the woman? Or, why else would the professor assume that men’s failure to meet this schedule of women is proof of their ignorance of what is good for them?

The American woman is doomed to fail in her quest to have a good life, not only because of feminism, but because of her extreme narcissism. Pride, the good book says, comes before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction.

“I am curious about the “minimal insurance coverage”. Why is this a good thing?”

Here, I mean it as an indicator of personality. In the long run, having insurance is more expensive than replacing your losses because insurance companies want to at least break even on the deal. Most women are motivated by fear so they tend to get lots of insurance coverage instead of realizing that saving, maintenance and prudent living is the objectively better choice.

A woman who’s overcome her instincts enough to live without total-coverage insurance is probably a woman who’s overcome her hamster, and that is who CD is looking for.

There’s nothing wrong with having comprehensive insurance for the same reason there’s nothing wrong with hiring a cleaning service instead of doing your own vacuuming. You probably have a busy, profitable life so it makes sense to pay a little extra for somebody else to handle the details.

…

Mark Citadel @ 8:11 am:
“And are men so careless and depraved as to leave their lineage to any fate for a quick buck?”

Sadly, upon reflection sperm banks are a good deal for men. If you can’t be part of your child’s life anyway then there’s really no drawback; getting paid to donate is much more rewarding than digging through the refuse pile of modern women; and so far, it’s the only way to father kids without risking chilamony.

Thanks for the explanation Gunner. Yes, women living “in fear”, instead of trusting God, is not helpful.
I also have had many occasions to correct myself for being anxious instead of trusting God (Phil 4:4-8).

I wasn’t aware Sex in the City episodes were re-airing in Denmark. I’m wondering what aspects of Danish society began to mirror the United States and when. I hope the percentages of ex-party girl slut never married childless 30+ women are low in Denmark and Europe compared to the United States.